If you haven’t heard by now, here’s an incredible article on the efficacy of homeopathy, via Dana Ullman, writing for Huffington Post.

Recently, the Swiss government (not any pressure group, think tank or pharmaceutical company–the actual government of the country of Switzerland) released a report on homeopathy and related CAM treatments. Their findings are astounding, in that they give evidence, once and for all, of the efficacy of homeopathic treatments. Further, the report notes that half the population of Switzerland uses or has used CAM treatments, specifically homeopathic medicines, and that a full eighty-five percent of the population of that nation believes that CAM treatments should be covered by the national health care plan.

Such a difference from the folks in the UK, who have allowed themselves to be deceived by a small group of very vocal “skeptics,” whose role it is to drive homeopaths and homeopathic medicine into the icy waters of the North Atlantic. Perhaps if the British government could see it way clear to conduct its own exhaustive research into the matter they, like the Swiss, would conclude that homeopathic medicine and other CAM treatments not only should be part of the national health care, but also are actually more effective, cheaper and safer than their allopathic alternatives.

I live for the day when allopathy is considered the “alternative” to mainstream homeopathy. And I won’t shut my big mouth until that happens.

Read Dana’s article about the Swiss government’s findings here. And help spread the word by cut and pasting this link all over the internet.

Add another big mouth to that one of yours!
Fear tactics and convoluted logic being used in the name of science don’t work for me. Another model of health care has to arise from the times we are in at the moment. One that respects the individual not a herd ( a group of sick people with a similar disease) and one that isn’t based on an expensive pill/drug that only removes a symptom and doesn’t cure the cause of the disease. Historical precedents are there for what is happening and let’s read up about those and keep our minds and mouths and hearts in unison.

Only one problem: the report is not /by/ the Swiss government, it’s a report /to/ the Swiss government… by homeopaths. An example of a report by a government would be the UK’s Parliamentary Science & Technology Committee’s Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy. This took formal written and interview evidence from homeopaths, CAM advocates, practitioners and scientists, and it concluded that homeopathy is a placebo – exactly as the high quality systematic reviews conclude, once they have controlled for study methodology.

The Swiss report starts badly: by stating as a premise the thing which it is supposed to be evaluating (i.e. is homeopathy effective), and goes on to decry the review by Shang et. al. for the unforgivable fault of weighing the evidence by quality (which of course leads to the conclusion that homeopathy is a placebo, a sham treatment, which is consistent with everything else we know about human physiology and the nature of matter) rather than by volume. By including the studies that Shang et. al. rejected due to woeful shortcomings such as lack of blinding, inadequate or no controls and subjective assessment the authors arrive at a pro-homeopathy result, which is what the they set out to do, though they fail to show how this is supportable by robust science. Never mind quantum mechanics and the Avogadro constant, it’s popular!

Forty billion flies can’t be wrong, eat dung.

A repeatable feature of pseudoscience is the production of dreadful faux-scientific papers. Homeopathy is no exception. Not just the spectacular examples like Benveniste, which was outright fraud, but mundane everyday junk like not counting results that don’t support your conclusion, claiming cytotoxic effects due to an absent homeopathic product rather than the (cytotoxic) alcohol in which it was dissolved, failing to even single blind your controls, and of course the absolute doozie, basing your entire premise on a “law of similars” which not only lacks any credible evidential basis, but is actually known to be generally false.

Quacks produce terrible caricatures of scientific analysis. This is just another example, and frankly we didn’t need one, there are far too many already.

Here’s a challenge for you: produce one single peer-reviewed paper from a respectable journal that unambiguously refutes the null hypothesis of placebo effect plus observer bias, to the satisfaction of people who actually understand biostatistics and the scientific method. The authors will get a free all expenses paid trip to Stockholm, so start work now!

Glad you only had the ONE problem with my post, Chap. Thanks for sharing.

However, I had several problems with your comments that I need to let you know about.

First, you seem to think that we are entering into a game of chess here. We are not. Your comments have been posted only because I allowed them to be. In asking to comment here, you are entering into my blog, my little realm of the internet. Here I post about the things I believe, the things that are important to me, homeopathic medicine among them. (I have another blog on literature that speaks to the part of me that works as a literary critic. You ought to give it a look sometime. Although doubtless you would find something there to bitch about as well.) This is not a public forum. It does not follow the rules of debate. Indeed, debate is not encouraged. In other words, I publish this for myself, for those who are interested in learning more about homeopathy and holistic approaches to healthcare and for those who think as I do. I have that right. And if you are not interested, you are cordially invited to move along to the next blog, where you may find yourself more tolerated, if not welcomed.

Second, as you can readily see from the link, the source of my post was an article that Dana Ullman had posted in the Huffington Post. If and/or the Huffington Post should update or retract any or all of the article concerning the Swiss report, I will post it as well. Until then, the post stands as is. And for those who are interested, Dana as a follow up article on the report and on how homeopathy was found to be a low-cost, highly effective form of medicine in the same report. It makes for excellent reading. You can find it a Huffington Post.

I always find it interesting when people attack someone like Dana. Here’s a man who literally went to prison for his beliefs. He has spent his life in the service of homeopathy and, in doing so, he has achieved a level of respect, not just in the homeopathic community, but also in the world to the point that he now has a soapbox at as powerful a site as Huffington Post. He is an easy target, because he is outspoken and willing to take on all comers. For that he is to be congratulated. For a pusher like you, Chap, to run snapping at his heels chafes me, I do admit.

Third, there is you cut and paste post itself. So strangely worded until on realizes how little of it is original to you. Indeed, one need only follow a very short train of links to your blog until one arrives at Guy Chapman’s “Blahg,” where a good bit of your material comes from. It has long been an attribute of you Brit skeptics to employ a sort of “group mind” which spares you all from having to speak or think for yourselves. I have been inundated with posts from you “Flying Monkeys” in the past–and the term Flying Monkeys is one that I gave you BECAUSE of your willingness to do the bidding of your superiors, you wiliness to march/fly in lockstep, repeating, endlessly repeating the same crap over and over again.

Listen, Chap, I have been using homeopathic remedies for thirty years now. I was cured of the same condition that “little” Rhys Morgan still suffers from over a quarter of a century ago now and have never had a reoccurrence. I have seen dozens and dozens of cures through the use of homeopathic medicines over the decades and I believe in them for the best reason possible: my own personal experience over a long period of time. WIll you accept that as proof? Of course not. Do I give a damn? Of course not. I am not here to prove anything to you. Honestly, I could not care less what sort of medical decisions you make in your own life. It is not any of my business. What irritates me is that you think that you should have a say about what I should or should not be able to do in terms of medical treatment. While I most certainly would not deprive anyone of all the allopathic medicine that they want, even though I think it toxic, you would, if you could, change the laws so that homeopathy is no longer a part of your national health care plan, and, likely would outlaw it if possible. I find this disgusting. Not because we disagree, but because I believe in a freedom of choice that you obviously do not. Because of your actions and beliefs, I place you and your ilk in the category of those in this country who would turn back the clock and change the laws so that women would no longer have control over their own reproductive health. Frankly, such behavior sickens me.

I believe that, if through your actions or words, you keep one person from trying to better their life through the use of homeopathics or other CAM methods, you have done the world a great harm. You do not know as much about health and healing as you think you do, Chap. Certainly not as much as I. I’ve studied healing for thirty years now, have authored ten books on the subject and have reached the point in my life at which my patience for this is pretty much shot. In the time I have left, I am willing to do two things: discuss health and healing with those who want to hear what I have to say (without spending any time arguing with those who don’t–here I follow the Biblical advise of shaking the dust off my sandals and moving on) and making damn sure that people like you NEVER get the chance to block anyone from getting the medical help that they want, and again let me note that I mean any kind that they choose, allopathic or homeopathic. Over my dead body will the laws change here in the USA concerning CAM treatments. It sickens me, frankly, that your little (and I do mean LITTLE, you may be very loud but there are few of you) band of loudmouths have managed to intimidate some folks in the UK, but you will NEVER intimidate or silence me. Come at me, you won’t silence or stop me.

Finally, HOW DARE YOU come to MY site and make challenges? You don’t set the rules here, make challenges here or in any other way have any say about anything at MY blog. Set all the challenges you want at your own stupid blog, but here you respect my rules and my way of running things or you go away. Got it?

Now I have a challenge for you, Chap. Why don’t you go to visit a professional homeopath of your choosing. If you don’t know one I am quite sure I can locate one for you. Sit and have your case taken, honestly giving the requested information. And then take the remedy that is prescribed for the prescribed amount of time. If, at the time of your revisit you have not seem a sufficiently impressive impact from the remedy, then I will happily let you come and present a post here talking about your experience with homeopathy and why you feel it failed you. And honest assessment of your experience, good or bad, would have a lot more impact than does your parroting back (plagiarizing) what other people have to say. If you can open your mind enough to try homeopathy, and give it a fair chance to work in your life, who knows, I might actually come to respect you.

As always, thanks for writing. But next time, leave your dung at home.

There are many blogs run by believers in homeopathy, and many blogs run by skeptics. In my experience the former are much less likely to allow dissenting comments than the latter.

Science is not a matter of faith or belief, it’s all about objectively testable evidence. When homeopathy is tested objectively, it is shown to be a placebo. There is no significant scientific dissent form this, any other conclusion would require that we completely discard everything we have learned about the nature of matter. Your reply is as strident as that of the creationists in respect of the teaching of evolution. Loud, confident, and sadly wrong.

It is unfortunate that you have chosen to expend such energy and passion in such an objectively worthless cause.

There is a reason why I challenged you to provide a single study refuting the null hypothesis: in science, one study properly refuting the null hypothesis can be all it takes to change the consensus. In the case of homeopathy, no such study exists. For this reason science considers the inflated health claims made by homeopaths to be fraudulent. This particularly applies to claims to cure cancer and other deadly diseases, and claims to protect against diseases such as malaria and typhoid. People who rely on homeopathy in these cases are at serious risk of harm or death (e.g. http://is.gd/dingle).

For you to change your mind would invoke huge cognitive dissonance, but it does happen. Try reading the evidence with a critical eye, look for the evidence of sloppy methodology and bias. Get some of the source papers. Check out honest work by homeopaths such as http://rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/11/08/rheumatology.keq234.full – Lewith is not part of the scientific orthodoxy, but he still concludes that the pills and potions themselves do nothing.

The mistake you make here is that you continue to rattle on in your lecture without dealing thoughtfully or intelligently on the points that I raised, particularly the one in which I suggest that you yourself try homeopathy. Unless you yourself have a deadly cancer, I assume that you can suggest no harm that could possibly occur from trying it–you yourself indicate that it is a useless thing and therefore could not possibly have anything to risk in taking my challenge. And yet, you ignore what I say and just ramble on.

The other mistake you make is to think that you are raising any new issues–that your are saying anything new. “Blah blah blah ineffective, blah blah blah unfortunate…” Who are you to inform me that it is “unfortunate”that I have expended time and/or energy at anything? You don’t know me. And, it’s quite obvious, you know nothing about homeopathy. Nothing that you have revealed, at any rate. Have you ever read a book? Have you any direct experience with it? I had a couple decades of experience–direct experience–with allopathy before I turned to homeopathy. And I would have never tried homeopathy in the first place if allopathy had worked for me. The “alternative” in alternative medicine is there because homeopathy works with allopathic medicine does not. You would have to be able to negate three decades of experience with your words in order to change that. You cannot and you will never be able to.

So please save us both some time. Unless you actually have something original to say, just post somewhere else.

And just because there is a comment box does not mean that you have to use it in order to provoke an argument. And now that that has been clearly explained to you TWICE, I expect you to have grasped it. If not, ask Guy Chapman to explain it to you.

Well replied to ‘Chap’. I take exception to one thing that you said, though – and it is a fundamental error made by many people – “I believe in homoepathy…”.

I suggest it would be better to say “I KNOW that homeopathy works, because it worked for me.” It is established knowledge as opposed to some woolly Swedenborgian semi-religious dogma of J T Kent and his followers.

I DO NOT WANT MY CLIENTS TO BELIEVE IN HOMEOPATHY AND TELL THEM OFF WHENEVER THEY USE THE WORD.

IT EITHER WORKED FOR THEM – RIGHT REMEDIES – OR IT DIDN’T – WRONG REMEDIES

Millions of people KNOW that Homeopathy works because they have an experience of it working, so let us get away from opinion. That is the realm of The Flying Monkeys, bless their tiny and deluded little minds!

They are in the same head space as the Flat-Earthers…’reality – aka the Quantum versus the Newtonian model of the Universe – is shifting and it is extremely challenging to the ‘rational/ratty’ mind.

If they were/are REAL ‘scientists’ they would approach things such as homeopathy with the prerequisite of a true scientist (someone who would like to know) … an OPEN MIND as opposed to a closed and prejudiced (i.e. I have made up my mind already so don’t bother me with facts) mind.

Science is currently VERY sick and is disappearing down a cul-de-sac/blind alley, hobbled as it is with random-controlled double-blind studies, which, as we live in a random/quantum universe is as daft as it is dangerous*. Merely interacting with an experiment affects the outcome etc. It is also reductionistic in a ‘safe mode’ way of dealing with the enormity that faces us as our understanding of the whole quantum physics thing threatens to give us a collective headache … or reality-check!

There will be a small fine of 50 cents the next time I hear Homeopathy and Believe in the same sentence, young man! LOL

While I understand what you are saying, I will stick by my wording. The word belief is a powerful one and its meaning is strictly in line with the point of want to make.

And sorry if this upsets you or causes you to think less of me, but I am one of those who follows Kent and one who thinks of healing in what you would likely think of as semi-religious terms. I do believe that energy and spirit are the same force and that, in removing energetic blocks and allowing Vital Force to flow, we are working on the level of spirit (and that, after spirit flows freely, the flesh has to follow in terms of healing).

That said, I do believe that homeopathy represents a big tent and that there are many filters that one might use to view the process known as healing. The important thing is that freedom of choice and of thought are allowed to remain and be available to all.

Regards to you Peter (that’s for implying that I am in any way young), as always,

No offence intended towards Kent – I am primarily very Kentian myself – however my point was merely to make the distinction between the reality of what occurs following a homeopathic Rx as opposed to ‘muddying the waters’ by introducing the Shibboleth* of Faith, which respectfully, plays into the hands of the reductionistic ‘scientist’ types who will, like a terrier, grab onto the bone and use it as a means to achieve their goal of destroying homeopathy.

What you and I happen to have cobbled together from our experiences and beliefs to form OUR personal world-construct of ‘How It All Works’, (as opposed to CHAP’s) is surely against Hahnemann’s “Don’t speculate, simply apply the rules” edict.

I, too, would count myself as strongly ‘spiritual’ in my approach to every client, but HOW we arrive at our Rx is, as you rightly say is “… a big tent …”

I hope that this clarifies my intent. Should you choose to continue to use the word ‘belief’ in regards to homeopathy – in a semi-public forum such as your blog – that is of course your complete andutter right.